It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by ldyserenity
How do you sign as a freeman? I mean without the corporate name like instead of signing jones you signed smith??? I don't get it???? you can give me an example using smith jones or brown whatever?
[edit on 27-7-2010 by ldyserenity]
Nice story although I feel sorry for your kids being home schooled and missing out on a real education and the whole school "experience" unless of course you do intend to allow them a proper education at some point ?
Trojan Horse “Food Safety” Law
...Many informal makers of ethnically or culturally distinctive food items will go off-books or simply fall by the wayside, overwhelmed by the reporting and batch-tracking paperwork....
....Ignorance about the law’s broad reach (and how it will be construed by the courts) has thwarted opposition to the bill, which will likely pass Congress. For example, a newspaper claims the bill “doesn’t regulate home gardens.” The newspaper probably assumed that was true because the bill, like most federal laws, only purports to reach activities that affect “interstate commerce.” To an uninformed layperson or journalist, that “sounds as if it might not reach local and mom-and-pop operators at all.” (The bill’s sponsor, Rep. Rosa DeLauro, has sought to forestall opposition to her bill by falsely claiming that that “the Constitution’s commerce clause prevents the federal government from regulating commerce that doesn’t cross state lines.”)
But lawyers familiar with our capricious legal system know better. The Supreme Court ruled in Wickard v. Filburn (1942) that even home gardens (in that case, a farmer’s growing wheat for his own consumption) are subject to federal laws that regulate interstate commerce. Economists and scholars have criticized this decision, but it continues to be cited and followed in Supreme Court rulings, such as those applying federal anti-drug laws to consumption of even home-grown medical marijuana. Indeed, many court decisions allow Congress to define as “interstate commerce” even non-commercial conduct that doesn’t cross state lines....
Lori Robertson of FactCheck.org, who is not a lawyer (she has a B.A. in advertising), claims the bill doesn’t apply to “that tomato plant in your backyard.” As a lawyer, I am skeptical of this claim. (I co-represented the prevailing defendant in the last successful constitutional challenge to federal regulation under the interstate commerce clause, United States v. Morrison (2000) — one of only two cases since the 1930s where the Supreme Court limited, rather than rubberstamped, regulation in the name of “interstate commerce”). And it appears that that the proposed law CAN apply to that tomato plant in your backyard (or Michelle Obama’s garden), since Congress’s power under the Commerce Clause is almost unlimited in the eyes of the courts
....With all of the extra I cook food and sell it to local factory workers, yup, I make good home cooked meals with the extra I get from helping others, to provide electric, phone, and internet here. I'm known around here for not just food, but helping....
2. The requirements specifically cover on-farm processing. (p.18) A farm is
considered a facility if it does any processing of foods (such as making maple syrup,
sun-dried tomatoes, or jams) unless the food is consumed on the farm. (p.22)
3. FDA is directed to “provide sufficient flexibility to be practicable for all sizes and
types of facilities” including small businesses. (p.18) These are undefined terms and,
in practice, largely unenforceable.
4. FDA has discretion to choose to exempt or modify requirements for on-farm
processing “as the Secretary deems appropriate.” This discretionary authority of the
FDA only applies to small facilities and low-risk activities. (pp.23-24)
A. FDA is authorized to establish standards for how fruits and vegetables are grown and
harvested, including standards for “soil amendments, hygiene, packing, temperature
controls, animals in the growing area, and water.” (pp.30&32) This does not
authorize FDA to set standards for meat, eggs, or dairy, although farmers who have
both livestock and produce could face problems based on the requirements about
“animals in the growing area.”
Standards shall “take into consideration, consistent with ensuring enforceable public
health protection, conservation and environmental practice standards and policies
established by Federal natural resource conservation, wildlife conservation, and
environmental agencies.” (p.32) Having considered these policies, FDA is not legally
obligated to protect natural resources or wildlife.
B. FDA shall establish a product tracing system. (p.111)
E. Food that is produced and packaged on a farm, and for which the packaging
“maintains the integrity of the product and prevents subsequent contamination”, and
is labeled with the farm’s information, is exempt from traceback requirements.
(p.119) This is often referred to as “identity preserved” items.
F. Food that is sold from a farm directly to a consumer is exempt from the traceback
A. Small entity compliance policy guide. Throughout the bill, the agency is directed to
prepare a “Small Entity Compliance Policy Guide” after it adopts new rules, which
sets forth in “plain language” the requirements of the new regulations....
2. Foreign facilities are inspected, starting with just 600 per year and gradually
increasing to approximately 19,000 foreign facilities annually over a 6-year period.
Based on FDA’s estimate of 210,000 foreign facilities
Facilities/ucm175995.htm), it will take 15 years for FDA inspect each foreign facility
just once under S. 510. Yet the bill calls for a domestic high-risk facility to have
been inspected at least four times in that same time period, and a low-risk facility
(such as a local baker or jam-maker) to have been inspected at least twice during that
same time period....